June 20, 2005
Carl Corry, director, Director, Region I, SPJ
c/o Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
Kevin Schweikher, membership coordinator
Society of Professional Journalists
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Dear Mr. Corry and Mr. Schweikher:
Dr. Barbara Reed, vice-president of the New Jersey SPJ chapter and a professor of
journalism at Rutgers University, asked Dr. Walter Brasch to create a panel about the
USA PATRIOT Act. This panel would be presented at the Region I (New England and
Mid-Atlantic states) conference, March 30–April 1, 2006, in New Brunswick, N.J. Dr.
Brasch was to be given freedom to assemble a panel he deemed of sufficient strength
to inform members and delegates about the Act and its effects, not just upon journalists
but upon the American people. He was told there would be NO funding from the NJ
chapter OR from Region I. He selected the panel, and then got funding (mileage, meals,
necessary hotel room) from the Keystone State professional chapter, in Region I.
Dr. Brasch presented this information to Dr. Reed, a member of the Planning
Committee for the Regional. Dr. Reed agreed this was an excellent panel, and
presented it to the Planning Committee at a meeting in her house.
However, the men of the Planning Committee raised innumerable objections to this
panel (and, essentially, cavalierly dismissed Dr. Reed’s arguments for its inclusion.) The
Committee stated that it would consider such a panel only IF several conditions were
met. (This was stated AFTER Dr. Brasch was told to create such a panel.) The
objections were presented one week, and then reiterated in another memo the following
week. These objections, indicative of what the Society has become, were:
● The planning committee erroneously believed that the panel Dr. Brasch selected was
not ―balanced.‖ David Levitt, an employee of Bloomberg News and president of the NJ
Pro chapter, in a memo to the chapter’s vice-president, stated:
I talked yesterday to [Carl] Corry [Regional Director, and an employee of the long
Island Business News], and read him the proposed panel. He shares our (that is
me Guy and Joe's) concern about balance and diversity of viewpoints. On its
face, he doesn't think the panel as described would be appropriate. [informal
sentence deleted] If you believe strongly that Brasch and his suggested panelists
are appropriate for the conference, make the case as strongly as you can. Or
else, if Brasch won't accept any alterations or substitutions, then we should just
respectfully decline his invite and move on.
This memo alone is indicative of an arrogance of uninformed power and lack of
knowledge by the committee of the subject matter and, possibly, indicative of a political
slant. For such a statement to be made is indicative of the reasons why such a panel is
necessary. All four members of the panel are nationally recognized as experts in the
PATRIOT Act, and have numerous publications that have met with public scrutiny. More
important, all four members are active in First Amendment issues.
To reiterate, members of the panel were:
1. The former president of the 64,000–member American Library
Association, who has been active in speaking and writing about this Act. The ALA
mission is ―to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of
library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance
learning and ensure access to information for all.‖
2. The president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression, which was founded by the nation’s booksellers to ―protect the free
exchange of ideas, particularly those contained in books, by opposing restrictions on the
freedom of speech; issuing statements on significant free expression controversies;
participating in legal cases involving First Amendment rights; collaborating with other
groups with an interest in free speech; and providing education about the importance of
free expression to booksellers, other members of the book industry, politicians, the
press and the public.‖
3. The co-founder of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. The BORDC
mission is ―to organize and support an effective, national grassroots movement to
restore civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights [and to] provide organizing
strategies and technical assistance people can use in their communities to join in a
broad, national, nonpartisan debate about the need to protect the civil liberties of U.S.
citizens and non-citizens.‖ Perhaps the Planning Committee for the Regional believes
the Bill of Rights is nothing other than a liberal propaganda document, and a panel ―for
balance‖ should have included someone who believes it’s acceptable not to follow the
Bill of Rights.
4. The moderator (see below)
● The Planning Committee wanted a ―reporter who covered‖ the PATRIOT Act to be on
the panel. Certainly, as the former regional director knows, and which Dr. Reed strongly
pointed out, the moderator (Dr. Brasch) has solid journalistic credentials.
SPJ: Inducted into membership in 1969. VP, Inland Professional Chapter
(SoCalif.) two years; board member, three years. President, Keystone State
professional chapter, 6 years; board member, 10 years; asst. regional director, 2 years.
As Keystone president, chapter earned the national FOI award, and was also named
the outstanding chapter in the region.
Current Journalism/Past Journalism: semi-monthly (award-winning) columnist
(syndicated), and reporter of 2–4 hard news stories a year. See: www.walterbrasch.com
for further details.
University Professor: Named Outstanding Professor three times by National
Federation of Press Women . . . awarded Deans’ Award for Excellence in Teaching and
Research . . . honored with the Martin Luther King Jr. Distinguished Humanitarian
Service Award. His journalism advisees obtain solid internships and have a 90+%
placement rate within three months of graduation. Perhaps members of the Committee
erroneously believe that professors of journalism have little knowledge of journalism.
(Perhaps they also believe that professors of medicine, law, dentistry, accounting, and
other professions are also inferior to the ―working‖ professional.)
Book Author: Fifteen books, all critically acclaimed (see:
www.walterbrasch.com); most of them focus upon social issues, with heavy emphasis
upon the media.
Coverage of the USA PATRIOT Act: Dr. Brasch is a recognized expert on the
Act, and has written a major book upon the subject (which also includes several First
Amendment issues.) He also has reported upon how the media did and did not cover
this Act and the critical issues involved. Thus, by his own writings, he has REPORTED
on the Act far more in-depth than any member of SPJ. Nevertheless, the Planning
Committee still believed it needed a ―reporter who covered‖ the PATRIOT Act. (Dr.
Brasch’s professional analysis of many of the reporters who covered the Act is that
most of them channeled the Administration’s arguments.) This attitude by the Planning
Committee is insulting and degrading, and reflects if not the political bias of this
committee, then the journalistic ineptness.
● The Planning Committee wanted an SPJ attorney to be on the panel. Bruce Sanford,
the one suggested, is an excellent attorney for a part of the First Amendment, but there
is a question if Mr. Sanford has authored any articles about the USA PATRIOT Act.
● The Planning Committee wanted ―the other side,‖ perhaps someone from the
Department of Justice. Considering the news media had already given far more inches
and air time to DoJ and Homeland Security spokesmen than any opposition, Dr. Brasch
saw no reason to include a U.S. attorney or someone from the Bush Administration.
This was not to be a debate, nor presentation of propaganda, but a presentation of
information about an Act that has direct impact upon Americans. The four persons on
the panel are sufficiently knowledgeable to raise the issues. And, they ALL have
expertise and ability to understand the PATRIOT Act. What one person may be weak
on, one of the other panelists would be strong on. And, it is quite probable that the four
panelists don’t agree lock-step with the others. To add a DoJ official, in the pretext that
it was ―balancing‖ the panel, would be counter-productive in this setting. Further, good
journalists would ask good questions of this panel, and then research the questions and
answers. (But, based upon the activities of the news media, and as explained by public
apologies printed by both the New York Times and Washington Post, this may just be a
wish.)
● The Planning Committee was firm in stating that the focus of the panel must be on
how the PATRIOT Act directly affects journalists, and not to stray from that focus. This
is a very narrow focus. While each panelist could each talk for an hour about this, the
issue is more how it affects ALL people. Reporters have to stop thinking they’re
something special. Dr. Brasch was under the impression that SPJ members should be
attending panels to learn MORE about critical issues to which they need to have
stronger subject knowledge to be able to report those issues. If reporters are expected
to write about this critical social issue, they should know the content so they don’t just
channel someone’s beliefs in a typical ―he said/she said‖ story. The purpose of this
panel was to give reporters enough information about the Act and its implementation
that they could then do their own articles. What the planning committee wanted,
obviously, was similar to an education conference of teachers—the panels would be
more on HOW to teach, rather than on subject matter. (―Tell us about how to write ledes
about the environment, but don’t go into the environmental issues and give us
substance.)
● It is also apparent that the Planning Committee may not be aware that there is
significant national opposition to the PATRIOT Act, that major liberals (Noam Chomsky,
Paul Krassner, and others) as well as major national conservatives (Bob Barr, David
Keene, Newt Gingrich, C.L. Otter, Alan Caruba—a Region I SPJ member—among
others) oppose many sections of this Act. Perhaps the Committee is not aware that the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a strong resolution to
discontinue funding for a part of the PATRIOT Act, based upon its violation of civil
rights. And, it is apparent that SPJ members needed to hear information about the Act
and its impact upon the people, as well as how the media have covered (or, in some
cases not covered) this Act and its opposition. Such discussion about reporting
practices could have been a significant part of reporters better understanding the
profession, the society, and the nature of reporting.
The requests of the Planning Committee, while well intentioned, but significantly
uninformed, shows a naiveté of ignorance about a critical social issue, and is in itself
indicative of why the panel needed to be presented.
Please be advised that based upon the rather ignorant, and ill-conceived, requirements
imposed by the Region I planning committee for the conference for 2006, and failure to
accept my earlier response, and the fact that if I accepted these requirements not only
would I be sacrificing my journalistic integrity, but would also be embarrassed to be in
the company of the Regional planning committee, I hereby withdraw this panel from the
Regional.
Be it further noted that based upon a number of reasons (see accompanying
document), I resign my membership in the Society of Professional Journalists.
WALTER M. BRASCH, Ph.D.